This conversation is closed.
It seems the conversationalists herein have relegated the golden rule to the world’s list of bad ideas.
With good arguments defending the golden rule, the original question-- Can TEDsters relegate the golden rule to its proper place (in the world’s list of bad ideas)?--would seem bigoted.
However, Matthieu thought supporting arguments were convincing.
Alas, that assessment did not prevail, so I revised the question to: Since people want to keep or “revive” the golden rule how is it to be applied? Some responses seemed to be: Within my limiting circle. Yet, as the conversation progressed, some participants seemed to consider alternatives. Some may have been persuaded by Lelsie’s complete arguments.
Leslie suggested the platinum rule, “do unto others as THEY would have you do unto them.” It requires discussion and succeeds on integrity and reciprocity. An “ego agenda” changes to “we-go agenda.” People learn “to be appropriately independent and interdependent.” To avoid self-contradiction, they’re blunt about personal preferences.
If a rule is necessary for humankind to discover peace, it seems Leslie has a pretty complete package.
Few TEDsters participated, but I am grateful to every participant; the group seemed to get the task accomplished. Interested people should read the conversation for useful details.
Please comment during the remaining time, as I do not plan to extend this discussion.